高层建筑展望及建筑结构外文文献翻译、中英文翻译、外文翻译

The future of the tall building and structure of buildings Zoning effects on the density of tall buildings and solar design may raise ethical challenge. A combined project of old and new buildings may bring back human scale to our cities. Owners and conceptual designers will be challenged in the 1980s to produce economically sound, people-oriented buildings.

In 1980 the Level House, designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merril1 (SOM) received the 25-year award from the American Institute of Architects “in recogn ition of architectural design of enduring significance”. This award is given once a year for a building between 25and 35 years old .Lewis Mumford described the Lever House as “the first office building in which modern materials, modern construction, modern functions have been combined with a modern plan”. At the time, this daring concept could only be achieved by visionary men like Gordon Bunshaft, the designer , and Charles Luckman , the owner and then-president of Lever Brothers . The project also include d a few “first” : (1) it was the first sealed glass tower ever built ; (2) it was the first office building designed by SOM ;and (3) it was the first office building on Park Avenue to omit retail space on the first floor. Today, after hundreds of look-alike and variations on the grid design, we have reached what may be the epitome of tall building design: the nondescript building. Except for a few recently completed buildings that seem to be people-oriented in their lower floors, most tall buildings seem to be arepletion of the dull, graph-paper-like monoliths in many of our cities. Can this be the end of the design-line for tall buildings? Probably cannot. There are definite signs that are most encouraging. Architects and owners have recently begun to discuss the design problem publicly. Perhaps we are at the threshold of a new era. The 1980s may bring forth some new visionaries like Bunshaft and Luckman. If so, what kinds of restrictions or challenges do they face?

Zoning Indications are strong that cities may restrict the density of tall buildings, that is, reduce the number of tall buildings per square mile. In 1980 the term

grid-lock was used for the first time publicly in New York City. It caused a terror-like sensation in the pit of one’s stomach. The t erm refers to a situation in which traffic comes to a standstill for many city blocks in all directions. The jam-up may even reach to the tunnels and bridges .Strangely enough, such as event happened in New York in a year of fuel shortages and high gasoline prices. If we are to avoid similar occurrences, it is obvious that the density of people, places, and vehicles must be drastically reduced. Zoning may be the only long-term solution.

Solar zoning may become more and more popular as city residents are blocked from the sun by tall buildings. Regardless of how effectively a tall building is designed to conserve energy, it may at the same time deprive a resident or neighbor of solar access. In the 1980s the right to see the sun may become a most interesting ethical question that may revolutionize the architectural fabric of the city. Mixed-use zoning became a financially viable alternative during the 1970s, may become commonplace during the 1980s, especially if it is combined with solar zoning to provide access to the sun for all occupants.

Renovation Emery Roth and Sons designed the Palace Hotel in New York as an addition to a renovated historic Villard house on Madison Avenue. It is a striking example of what can be done with salvageable and beautifully detailed old buildings. Recycling both large and small buildings may become the way in which humanism and warmth will be returned to buildings during the 80s’. If we must continue to design with glass and aluminum in stark grid patterns, for whatever reason, we may find that a combination of new and old will become the great humane design trend of the future.

Conceptual design it has been suggested in architectural magazines that the Bank of America office building in San Francisco is too large for the city’s scale. It has also been suggested that the John Hancock Center in Boston in not only out of scale but also out of character with the city. Similar statements and opinions have been made about other significant tall buildings in cities throughout the world. These

comments raise some basic questions about the design process and who really make the design decisions on important structures-and about who will make these decisions in the 1980s.

Will the forthcoming visionaries-architects and owners-return to more humane designs?

Will the sociologist or psychologist play a more important role in the years ahead to help convince these visionaries that a new, radically different, human-scaled architecture is long overdue? If these are valid questions, could it be tha t our “best” architectural designers of the 60s’ and 70s’ will become the worst designers of the 80s’ and 90s’? Or will they learn and respond to a valuable lesson they should have learned in their “History of Architecture” course in college that “architec ture usually reflects the success or failure or failure of a civilized society”? Only time will tell.

A building is closely bound up with people, for it provides people with the necessary space to work and live in. As classified by their use, buildings are mainly of two types: industrial buildings and civil buildings. Industrial buildings are used by various factories or industrial production while civil buildings are those that are used by people for dwelling, emplovment, education and other social activities.

The construction of industrial buildings is the same as that of civil buildings. However, industrial and civil buildings differ in the materials used, and in the structural forms or systems they are used.

Considering only the engineering essentials, the structure of a building can be defined as the assemblage of those parts which exist for the purpose of maintaining shape and stability. Its primary purpose is to resist any loads applied to the building and to transmit those to the ground.

In terms of architecture, the structure of a building is and does much more than that. It is an inseparable part of the building form and to varying degrees is a generator of that form. Used skillfully, the building structure can establish or reinforce orders and rhythms among the architectural volumes and planes. It can be

visually dominant or recessive. It can develop harmonies or conflicts. It can be both confining and emancipating. And, unfortunately in some cases, it cannot be ignored. It is physical.

The structure must also be engineered to maintain the architectural form. The principles and tools of physics and mathematics provide the basis for differentiating between rational and irrational forms in terms of construction. Artists can sometimes generate shapes that obviate any consideration of science, but architects cannot.

There are at least three items that must be present in the structure of a building: stability, strength and stiffness, economy.

Taking the first of the three requirements, it is obvious that stability is needed to maintain shape. An unstable building structure implies unbalanced forces or a lack of equilibrium and a consequent acceleration of the structure or its pieces.

The requirement of strength means that the materials selected to resist the stresses generated by the loads and shapes of the structure(s) must be adequate. Indeed, a “factor of safety” is usually provided so that under the anticipated loads, a given material is not stressed to a level even close to its rupture point. The material property called stiffness is considered with the requirement of strength. Stiffness is different from strength in that it directly involves how much a structure strain or deflects under load .A material that is very strong but lacking in stiffness will deform too much to be of value in resisting the forces applied.

Economy of building structure refers to more than just the cost of the materials used.Construction economy is a complicated subject involving raw materials ,fabrication ,erection ,and maintenance .Design and construction labor costs and the costs of energy consumption must be considered .Speed of construction and the cost of money (interest) are also factors .In most design situations ,more than one structural material requires https://www.360docs.net/doc/0313743552.html,pletive alternatives almost always exist ,and the choice is seldom obvious .

Apart from these three primary requirements ,several other factors are worthy of

emphasis .First ,the structure or structural system must relate to the building’s function .It should not be in conflict in terms of form .For example ,a linear function demands a linear structure ,and therefore it would be improper to roof a bowling alley with a dome .Similarly ,a theater must have large , unobstructed spans but a fine restaurant probably should not .Stated simply , the structure must be appropriate to the function it is to shelter .

Second, the structure must be fire-resistant. It is obvious that the structural system must be able to maintain its integrity at least until the occupants are safely out. Building codes specify the number of hours for which certain parts of a building must resist the heat without collapse. The structural materials used for those elements must be inherently fire-resistant or be adequately protected by fireproofing materials. The degree of fire resistance to be provided will depend upon a number of items, including the use and occupancy load of the space, its dimensions, and the location of the building.

Third, the structure should integrate well with the buil ding’s circulation systems. It should not be in conflict with the piping systems for water and waste, the ducting systems for air, or (most important) the movement of people. It is obvious building systems must be coordinated as the design progresses. One can design in a sequential step-by-step manner within any one system, but the design of all of them should move in a parallel manner toward completion. Spatially, all the various parts of a building are interdependent.

Fourth, the structure must be psychologically safe as well as physically safe. A high-rise frame that sways considerably in the wind might not actually be dangerous but may make the building uninhabitable just the same. Lightweight floor systems that are too “bouncy” can make the users very u ncomfortable. Large glass windows, uninterrupted by dividing motions, can be quite safe but will appear very insecure to the occupant standing next to on 40 floors above the street.

Sometimes the architect must make deliberate attempts to increase the apparent

strength or solidness of the structure. This apparent safety may be more important than honestly expressing the building’s structure, because the untrained viewer cannot distinguish between real and perceived safety.

The building designer needs to understand the behavior lf physical structures under load. An ability to intuit or “feel” structural behavior is possessed by those having much experience involving structural analysis, both qualitative and quantitative. The consequent knowledge of how forces, stresses, and deformations build up in different materials and shapes is vital to the development of this “sense”.

Structural analysis is the process of determining the forces and deformations in structures due to specified loads so that the structure can be designed rationally, and so that the state of safety of existing structures can be checked.

In the design of structures, it is necessary to start with a concept leading to a configuration which can then be analyzed. This is done so members can be sized and the needed reinforcing determined, in order to: a) carry the design loads without distress or excessive deformations (serviceability or working conditions); and b)to prevent collapse before a specified overload has been placed on the structure(safety or ultimate condition).

Since normally elastic conditions will prevailly undue working loads, a structural theory based on the assumptions of elastic behavior is appropriate for determining serviceability conditions. Collapse of a structure will usually occur only long after the elastic range of the materials has been exceeded at critical points, so that an ultimate strength theory based on the inelastic behavior of the materials is necessary for a rational determination of the safety of a structure against collapse. Nevertheless, an elastic theory can be used to determine a safe approximation to the strength of ductile structures (the lower bound approach of plasticity), and this approach is customarily followed in reinforced concrete practice. For this reason only the elastic theory of structures is pursued in this chapter.

Looked at critically, all structures are assemblies of three-dimensional elements,

the exact analysis of which is a forbidding task even under ideal conditions and impossible to contemplate under conditions of professional practice. For this reason, an important part of the analyst’s work is the simplification of the actual structure and loading conditions to a model which is susceptible to rational analysis.

Thus, a structural framing system is decomposed into a slab and floor beams which in turn frame into girders carried by columns which transmit the loads to the foundations. Since traditional structural analysis has been unable to cope with the action of the slab, this has often been idealized into a system of strips acting as beams. Aldo, long-hand method has been unable to cope with three-dimensional framing systems, so that the entire structure has been modeled by a system of planar subassemblies, to be analyzed one at a time. The modern matrix-computer methods have revolutionized structural analysis by making it possible to analyze entire systems, thus leading to more reliable predictions about the behavior of structures under loads.

Actual loading conditions are also both difficult to determine and to express realistically, and must be simplified for purposes of analysis. Thus, traffic loads on a bridge structure, which is essentially both of dynamic and random nature, is usually idealized into statically moving standard trucks, or distributed loads, intended to simulate the most severe loading conditions occurring in practice.

The most important use of structural analysis is as a tool in structural design. As such, it will usually be a part of a trial-and error procedure, in which an assumed configuration with assumed dead loads is analyzed, and the members designed in accordance with the results of the analysis. This phase is called the preliminary designed; since this design is still subject to change, usually a crude, fast analysis method is adequate. At this stage, the cost of the structure is estimated, loads and member properties are revised, and the design is checked for possible improvements. The changes are now incorporated in the structure, a more refined analysis is performed, and the member design is revised. This project is carried to convergence,

the rapidity of which will depend on the capability of the designer. It is clear that a variety of analysis methods, ranging from” quick and dirty to exact”, is needed for design purposes.

An efficient analyst must thus be in command of the rigorous methods of analysis, must be aware of available design and analysis aids, as well as simplifications permitted by applicable building codes. An up-to-date analyst must likewise be versed in the bases of matrix structural analysis and its use in digital computers as well as in the use of available analysis programs or software

高层建筑展望及建筑结构

区域规划对高层建筑物的密度和对自然采光设计可能引起道德问题将产生影响。能源的有限性将继续成为建筑设计面临的独特挑战。新老建筑的结合将会给我们的城市带来人情味。要设计建造出经济实用，以人为本的建筑物，将会是业主和概念设计师在20世纪80年代面临的挑战。

1980年欲斯柯摩尔、奥英斯和米瑞尔（SOM）设计的莱弗公寓获得了美国建筑师协会授予的25年奖“以奖励具有深远意义的优秀建筑设计”。这响奖每年授予一座房龄在25~35年之间的建筑物。用刘易斯.芒福德的话来说莱弗公寓是“第一座集现代材料、现代施工、现代功能与现代设计方案为一体的办公楼”。在当时，这样大胆的构思只有像设计师戈登.邦沙福特和业主—莱弗兄弟公司当时的总裁查尔斯.卢克曼那样富于幻想的人才能创造出来了。而且，这项工程包含了几个”第一”：（1）它是第一座全封闭的玻璃大厦；（2）它是SOM三人合作设计的第一栋办公楼；（3）它是公园大街第一座一层楼不设零售商场的办公楼。今天，经过众多外观相似而柱网变化的设计，我们已难以对建筑物进行归类，这也许是高层建筑设计的缩影。除了最近竣工的几栋低层楼房似乎比较怡人外，在我们的许多城市中，多数高层建筑物看上去就像图表上的柱标，好似一块块单调而又笨拙的巨石。难道这就是高层建筑设计行业的终点吗？也许不是。有迹象表明其发展是非常令人鼓舞的。建筑师和业主最近已开始公开讨论设计问题。也许我们正处在一个新时代的开端，20世纪80年代也许会产生一些像邦沙福特和卢克曼那样的幻想家。要是如此，他们会面临什么样的限制或挑战呢？区域规划很显然，城市可以限制高层建筑的密度，也就是减少每平方英里高层建筑的数量。1980年，“堵塞网”这个术语第一次在纽约市公开使用。它的出

现在公众心中引起恐慌。这个词指的是城市中四面八方的街区同时出现的交通停滞不动的现象，堵塞甚至一直延伸到隧道里和高架桥上。奇怪的是，这种事情竟然发生在纽约燃料短缺、油价高涨的年份。很显然，要想避免类似情况的出现，就必须大幅度地降低人口、降低活动场所油价车辆的密度。区域规划也许是唯一长远的解决方法。

城市居民由于收到高层建筑的遮挡而见不到阳光，因此，阳光规划将越来越受欢迎。无论高层建筑设计得如何节能，它同时有可能剥夺居住者和邻居享受阳光的权力。20世纪80年代享受阳光的权力会成为一个十分有趣的道德问题，这个问题会彻底改变城市的建筑布局。混合用途的分区规划在20世纪70年代还只是一种在经济上可行的抉择，在20世纪80年代将会得到普及，特别是将混合功能分区规划与阳光分区规划相结合，让所有的住户都享受到阳光。整修改造伊莫利.罗斯和桑斯两人合作设计的纽约王宫酒店是对麦迪逊大街上翻修后的古建筑维拉德公寓的补充和增色。这是一个如何对待可抢救的古建筑精品的突出实例。20世纪80年代对中西建筑物的重复利用将是人情味和温馨回到建筑物的途径。无论出于什么原因，如果我们必须继续使用玻璃和铝材进行那种呆板的方式设计的话，我们会发现新老建筑的结合将成为未来富有人情味建筑设计的大趋势。

概念设计有些建筑杂志认为位于旧金山的美洲银行办公大楼对于该城市来说规模过大，位于波士顿的约翰.汉考克中心不仅与该城市的规模不成比例，而且与其特点不符，对于世界各地主要高层建筑物的类似评论还有不少。这类评论提出了有关设计程序，和谁是重点项目设计的决策者，以及上世纪80年代的建筑设计应由谁来决策等基本问题。

未来的幻想家，即建筑师和业主会回到更富人情味的设计吗？

在今后的几年里社会学家和心理学家会发挥他们的重要作用使这些幻想家相信一种截然不同的、合乎人体尺寸的新型建筑设计早该付诸实践吗？如果这

些问题的突出解决有其合理性的话，那么六七十年代被我们视为“最杰出的”建筑设计师到了八九十年代就变成最差的吗？他们在大学“建筑史”这门课程中应该了解到“建筑常常反映了文明社会的成功与失败”，他们会学到这有益的一课并对此作出反应吗？也许只有时间才会作出回答。

建筑物与人类有着密切的关系，它能为人们在其中工作和生活提供必要的空间。根据其功能不同，建筑物主要有两大类：工业建筑和民用建筑。工业建筑有各种工厂或制造厂，而民用建筑指的是那些人们用以居住、工作、教育或其他社会活动的场所。

工业建筑的建造与民用建筑相同，但两者在所选用的材料、结构形式和体系方面是有差别的。

就工程的实质而言，建筑结构可定义为：以保持形状和稳定为目的的各个基本构件的组合体。其基本目的是抵抗作用在建筑物上的各种荷载并把它传到地基上。

从建筑学的角度来讲，建筑结构并非仅仅如此。它与建筑风格是不可分割的，在不同程度上是一种建筑风格的体现。如能巧妙地设计建筑结构，则可建立或加强建筑空间与建筑平面之间的格调与节奏。它在直观上可以是显性的或是隐性的。它能产生和谐体或对照体。他可能既局限又开放。不幸的是，在一些情况下，它不能被忽视。它是实际存在的。

结构设计还必须与建筑风格相吻合。物理学和数学的原理及工具为区分在结构上的合理和不合理的形式提供了依据。艺术家有时可以不必考虑科学就能画出图形，但建筑师却不行。在建筑结构中至少应包括三项内容：稳定性，强度和刚度，经济性。

在上述三项要求中，首先是稳定性。它在保持建筑物形状上是必不可少的。一座不稳定的建筑结构意味着有不平衡的力或失去平衡状态，并且由此导致结构整体或构件产生加速度。

强度的要求意味着所选择的结构材料足以承受由荷载产生的应力并且结构形状必须适当。实际上，通常都提供一个安全系数以便在预计的荷载作用下，使所选用材料的应力不会接近破坏应力。被称为刚度的材料的特性，需与强度要求一起考虑。刚度不同于强度，因为它涉及荷载作用下结构应变的大小和变形的程度。它具有很高强度，但刚度较低的材料，在外力作用下会因变形过大而失去其使用价值。

建筑结构的经济性指的不仅仅是所用材料的费用。建筑经济是一个复杂的问题，其中包括原材料、制作、安装和维修等。必须考虑设计和施工中人工费及能源消耗的费用。施工的速度和资金成本（利息）也是需要考虑的因素。对大多数设计情况，不能仅仅考虑一种建筑材料，经常存在一些有竞争性的其他选择，而具体应选择哪种并不明显。

除了这三种最基本要求之外，其他几种因素也值得重视。

首先，结构或结构体系必须和建筑物的功能相吻合而不应该与建筑形式相矛盾。例如，线形功能要求线形结构，所以若把保龄球场的顶部盖成圆形是不合适的。同样剧院必须是大跨度、中间没有障碍的结构，而高档饭店也许不是这样。简而言之，结构形式必须与所围护的功能相适应。

第二，结构必须防火。很显然，至少一直到内部人员安全撤离为止，结构体系必须能保持完整。建筑规范详细规定了建筑物的某些构件抵抗热量而且不倒塌的时间。用于那些构件的结构材料自身必须具有防火性或者用耐火材料加以适当保护。所规定的防火等级将取决于一系列因素，它包括建筑空间的占有量和使用情况、建筑物的尺寸及建筑物的位置。

第三，结构应与建筑物的循环系统很好地结合。它不应与给排水管道、通风系统或人的活动空间相矛盾（这是最重要的）。很显然，各种建筑系统在设计时必须相互协调。对任何单个系统的设计，可以有顺序地一步一步地进行，而对所有系统的设计则采用并行方式来完成。从空间上来讲，在一座建筑物中所

有的构件之间都是相互依存的。

第四，结构在心理上及外观上必须给人一种安全感。在风载作用下晃动剧烈的高层框架虽然没有危害，但仍然不适宜居住。弹性太大的轻质楼盖系统可能给居住者很不舒适的感觉。没有窗棂的巨大玻璃窗户尽管是相当安全的，但对居住在楼房里的人来说，特别是当他站在临街40层高楼的大玻璃窗前时，总会感到极不安全。

有时建筑师必须有意采取积极措施来增加建筑结构外表的强度和坚固性。外观的安全性也许比真实表达建筑结构更重要，因为没有受过训练的人是不能分清真实的和感觉中的安全性的。

建筑设计师需要理解荷载作用下实际结构的性能。在结构定性和定量分析两方面有丰富经验的设计师拥有直觉或感受结构性能的能力。关于力、应力、变形在不同的材料和形状的结构中是如何建立起来的相关知识，对于发展上述判断力是至关重要的。

结构分析是确定在给定荷载下结构中产生的力和变形，以便使结构设计得合理或检查现有结构的安全状况。

在结构设计中，必须先从结构的概念开始拟定一种结构形式，然后再进行分析。这样做能确定构件的尺寸以及所需要的钢筋，以便a）承受设计荷载而不出现损坏或过大变形（在正常使用或工作状态）；b）防止结构在荷载未达到规定的超载以前倒塌（安全性或极限状况）。

由于通常在使用荷载作用下，结构处于弹性状态，因此以弹性状态假定为基础的结构理论使用于正常使用状态。通常只有当危险截面的材料远远超过弹性范围之后，才可能发生结构倒塌，因而建立在材料非弹性状态基础上的极限强度理论是合理确定结构安全性，防止倒塌所必须的，不过弹性理论可用来确定延性结构强度的安全近似值（塑性下限逼近法），在钢筋混凝土设计中习惯采用这种方法。基于这种原因，在本章中仅采用结构的弹性理论。

严格地讲，所有结构都是三维构件的组合体，对其进行精确分析，即使在理想状态下也是棘手的工作，而在实际工程条件下，更是难以想象。基于这种原因，分析人员工作的一个重要部分是将实际结构和荷载状态简化成一个易于合理分析的模型。

这样，框架结构体系可分解成平板和楼板梁，楼板梁又通过框架传递给立柱支承的大梁，立柱再将荷载传递到基础上。由于传统的结构分析分析不能分析平板的作用，所以经常理想化为平面框架体系模型，逐一加以分析。现代的矩阵—计算机法可以分析整个体系从而革新了结构分析，这样可对荷载作用下结构的性能作出更可靠的预测。

实际荷载状态也是很难确定和很难客观表达的，为了进行分析，必须进行简化。例如，桥梁结构上的交通荷载主要是动荷载而且是随机的，通常理想化成静态行驶的标准卡车或分布荷载，以用来模拟实际产生的最不利的荷载状态。类似的还有，连续梁有时简化为简支梁，刚性节点简化为铰接点，忽略填充墙，把剪力墙视为梁；在决定如何建立个结构模型使之既比较客观又适度简单时，分析人员必须记住每一个理想化假设都将使求得的解更加不可靠。分析得越客观，产生的信心就越大，而所取的安全系数（或忽略的因素）可能就越小。这样，除非规范条款控制，工程师必须估算出结构精确分析所需追加的费用与由此节省的结构中费用比值，是否合算。

结构分析最重要的用途是作为结构设计中的工具。按此定义，它通常是反复试算过程中的一个环节，在这种方法中，首先，在假定的恒载下对假定的结构体系进行分析，然后根据分析结果设计各构件。这个阶段称为初步设计，由于此时的设计常常会变化，通常采用粗略的快速分析方法就足够了。在此阶段，估计结构的成本，修正荷载及构件特性，并对设计进行检查以便改进。至此，将所作的更改纳入到结构中，再进行更精细的分析，并修改构件设计。这一过程反复进行直至收敛，收敛的速度取决于设计者的能力。很清楚，为了达到设

计目的，需要从“迅速而粗略”到“精确”的各种分析方法。

因而，有那里的分析人员必须掌握严密的分析方法，必须能够通过适当的假设条件进行简化分析，必须了解可利用的标准设计和分析手段一级建筑规范中允许的简化方法。同时，现代的分析人员必须精确结构矩阵分析的基本原理及其在数字计算机中的应用并且会应用现有的分析程序及有关软件。